From Kim Clark - Former Board Chair

I am sure some will roll their eyes that I am making a statement, so if that is the case, commence with the eye roll now.

I am deeply saddened by the recent occurrences on the School Board.  It is very difficult to know just how challenging the task of a Board member is until you actually find yourself sitting in that hot seat every other Wednesday night.  I hope we all continually strive to understand a Board member is constantly trying to balance and prioritize both public and non-public information to make the best decisions they are capable of, and I believe we all need to support those willing to volunteer their time even when we disagree with their positions and opinions.  This doesn’t mean we should stop voicing our interests and concerns given that the Board is intended to be an extension of us, the voters, and they can’t do their job without knowing what we want.

Inexperience is nothing new to this School Board or any Oyster River Cooperative School Board that has come before it.  I hope that we can get over that label and certainly stop using it as an excuse for why things are the way they are.  I personally believe that diversity across the members, critical thinkers and fresh ideas are far more important than experience for a School Board to be effective and progressive, especially today.

In regards to the e-mails, in my experience on the Board we often did seek “legal opinion”.  The Board can meet and vote as to whether or not to release a “legal opinion”.  I would like to know when the Board met, discussed and voted on this issue.  I would like to know what the vote was.  This all should be public record.

If the Board did not meet to discuss the release or non-release of these e-mails, and have not voted, then I am curious as to why Superintendent Colter would make the statement in yesterday’s Foster’s that this had indeed occurred.  This distinction will be important to clarify, in order to prevent the public from making assumptions.

I also am curious about whether the emails in question came from the district attorney or the New Hampshire School Board Association, because there is a big difference between the two.  I would point out that an “opinion” from the New Hampshire School Board Association is different than a “legal opinion” from an attorney.  At the bottom of each e-mail from the NHSBA it specifically states “”The information provided here does not establish an attorney client relationship”, so is not subject to the rules governing attorney client privilege.

Also, at the bottom of each e-mail from the school district it states, “The right to know law provides that most e-mail communications, to or from school district employees regarding the business of the school district, are government records available to the public upon request.” 

I am sure some will say releasing the e-mails will only cause more of a problem. I don’t agree, and in my past Board experience, not being open with the public and not communication effectively with the public is what seems to be the core driver behind many of the Board’s issues.  The assumption of what may be in the e-mails, in my opinion, is worse than what may be in those e-mails.

I also hope the assertion of “back room deals” will stop immediately or be backed up with some kind of evidence.  My sense is there were none, except in the imagination of some.  My evidence is that I called a School Board Representative, and asked, as all citizens have a right to do.  Maybe even more to the point; it is perfectly legal for Board members to discuss issues outside of Board meetings as long as they don’t have a quorum or sequential communication on a specific topic.  As stated from the NH School board association and the training guide “Becoming a better board member.”

1. Is a board member allowed to discuss agenda items with one other board member outside of a meeting?

1.  Yes, a board member is allowed to discuss agenda items with another board member outside of a meeting.  So long as a quorum is not involved in the actual discussion, the discussion does not constitute a meeting with the definition of “meeting” under RSA 91-A:2.  However, there are a few caveats.
 RSA 91-A:2-a, II states:  “Communications outside a meeting, including, but not limited to, sequential communications among members of a public body, shall not be used to circumvent the spirit and purpose of this chapter as expressed in RSA 91-A:1.”

Thus, it would be ill-advised and likely contrary to the provisions of the Right to Know law to consult with board member outside of a meeting, then to immediately consult with a second board member about the same topic or item, and then to immediately consult with a third board about the same topic, and so forth.  These would fit within the meaning of “sequential communication” and would likely violate the Right to Know law.

 These accusations not supported with hard facts are dangerous, and this recent situation proves this.

Our newest members of the Board, as well as those who have been serving for some time, all care about making our district greater than it is.  Let us support them in moving ahead, and stop the attacks on board members who give countless hours to their community.

Of most importance, I hope our teachers are able to finish off this school year knowing that most in the community support all that they do and continue to believe we have a great school district.

Thank you,

Kim Clark